how do they breathe under the sea?
Sorry. Couldn't help it.
*blocks your path*
Please gib ssn
>>54671479Why is the astute so lumpy
What was wrong with subs that the french were trying to sell to the austrians?
>>54671586it was french. what more could it be?
>>54669861Laboe is fällich
>>54671579Real subs have curves.
>>54671479Please gib ICBM's instead
>>54671586The official statement claimed a delayed development of the French subs, so the Aussies switched to a SSN which will be commissioned in 2058. Lucky Aussies.
>>54671586I blame ScoMo retardation in how he handled the whole thing.>https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jan/31/top-defence-official-was-to-report-good-progress-on-french-submarine-project-weeks-before-axing>https://www.baka.com.au/national/aukus-fallout-double-dealing-and-deception-came-at-a-diplomatic-cost-20220513-p5al95.htmlCan't argue against the geopolitical advantages of AUKUS but I can understand why the frogs were mad. Nice to see that since Morrison lost the relations between the two countries seems to be better.
>>54672174Second link is fucked.>https://www.baka.com.au/national/aukus-fallout-double-dealing-and-deception-came-at-a-diplomatic-cost-20220513-p5al95.html
>>54671586Australians used to be allergic to nuclear power. They changed their mind so there was no reason to stick to boats with limited range and endurance.
>>54671586>Aus: we want to buy your subs>Fr: cool we sell nice nuclear subs>Aus: but we're afraid of nuclear>Fr: that's dumb but ok we can strap a diesel on it, just need more time now>Aus: yeah but no finally we'll buy to another store, bye
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE USS SCORPION?!?!?!?WHY WONT ANYONE TELL ME!?!?!?
>>54671579It uses an SSBN reactor which allows the reactor to work less and produce less noise while also keeping pumps further away from the sea.
>>54673635>tell me youre a frog without telling me youre a frog
>>54669784Nuclear Submarine can gather some oxygen via their desalination plants
Yes, you are correct in what you see here.
>>54673635You forgot>Here's 900 million Aussie taxpayers dollars for doing nothing.
>>54673681An armed torpedo failed to launch, jammed in its tube and blew the boat up. How did the Scorpion end up with a live torpedo running in its tube? Well they stumbled upon secret Russian exercises off the Azores. And they decided to do something really, really fucking bad.Faulty torpedo saved the world from a rogue submarine starting WW3.
>>54671479What is the "weapon" here?Amount of torpedoes carried?
>>54670553cuts a hole
best looking submarine ever
>>54674994Along with the first diesel-electrics and the Nautilus, the Type XXI might be the most important sub design ever.
How are torpedoes restocked in port? I see on diagrams they're usually delivered via winch to a loading hatch on the top deck, but the torpedo room is usually several decks below that. Are there hatches going through the floors of several decks to allow those winches to reach the torpedo room, or do the poor bastards have to carry the torpedoes through several flights of stairs one by one?
>>54672183>>54675241I think this is the article you meant to post? >https://www.baka.com.au/national/aukus-fallout-double-dealing-and-deception-came-at-a-diplomatic-cost-20220513-p5al95.html
>>54675280Usually there are hatches in the floors that allow the torpedos to be dropped in at an angle.
>>54675307lolreplace 'baka' with baka
>>54669630For some reason I associate this song with the Typhoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_oS-SndYM
>>54675260Based golf poster, love the way it looks
>>54676313It looks like the drawing of a 4yrs old child with a slight brain damage
>>54673893>a powerful boat>a powerful gun
>>54669630I like the extraordinary sail of this one. But we all know, the most beautiful sub of all times was the German ww2 type VII.
>>54677219I didn't need this feel
sad RCN noises
>>54680259CThe Cuckholder Class.Suits you Ma'am.
It’s time to talk about the best submarines in the world
>>54673725Not the hero we deserve, but probably the only one we’re gonna get
I've been here.
>>54681870Same, it and the Yamato museum across the street were pretty cool
>stealth SSK>AIP>18 Tomahawk VLSnice
>>54669784recycled air, there is a co2 scrubber and o2 generator in subs
>>54682105How much coke do you think a Virginia class sub could haul?
>>54682135>Driving shit like this across the AtlanticYou'd go through half the cargo just trying to take the edge
>>54682181I was thinking the same thing. No way you'd get me to cross the street in that let alone an ocean.
Considering the massive amount of resources and space a sub takes up to keep the humans inside of it alive, is the future drone tech? Seems like they would be far smaller, cheaper, able to dive deeper, and easier to mass produce.
>>54682535>Pic related is the visual representation of the interior of the average colombian narco sub. Comfy indeed
>>546715861. They weren't nuclear. Australia needs nuclear submarines because they have a fuckton of area to patrol.2. They didn't exist. The french were trying to sell them a submarine they didn't actually have designed yet, and it was getting stalled for years.
>>54682621>1. They weren't nuclear. Australia needs nuclear submarines because they have a fuckton of area to patrol.Dude the Aussies specifically ASKED for the subs to not be nuclear, the Frenchies only make nuclear subs, lmao. >2Fair enough, the Frenchies and the Aussies tried to make a deal on nuclear subs converted into diesel subs. Again, France does not make diesel subs.
>>54682640>Dude the Aussies specifically ASKED for the subs to not be nuclearYeah, which was stupid of them. Thankfully they realized their mistake.
>>54682441I feel like communicating with a drone big enough would be annoying as shit not to mention the nightmare involved with a reactor issue or god forbid a meltdown. Subs basically need to be able to operate autonomously and the AI tech isn't there yet
>>54669861Is that one of those famous screen doors I hear about on the polish submarines?
>>54682601dang I really want take a cozy trip on one of those jap sleeper trains but I know im too long for any of their bunks>6’6”
>Australia ties themselves to America through the turbulent 20s>Doesn't actually get a submarine until the 2040sPretty good deal for America lol
>>54673681The battery exploded, killing the crew ("low order" explosion detected by acoustic monitors).Out of control, Scorpion meandered a bit until it dove and imploded (also detected acoustically).Search for "commentaries of Bruce Rule".
>>54682093>USS Gabrielle Giffords
>>54673838Well it's common in this business.
>>54671479>4 torpedo tubes>6 torpedo tubesWith modern technology, do /k/ think there would be any advantage in having 1 torpedo tube and an auto loader that could load a torpedo in a minute or two?Why do we need so many? Aren't they disadvantageous to cost, durability, maintenance, speed, and stealth?
>>54671863AUS should get nukes
>>54676598>>54682070Looks cool af
>>54685482The problem with that approach is that reloading a torpedo tube has a high risk of giving off a noise transient, which isn't exactly ideal when you've launched already and possibly being searched for by whatever surface group / submarine you might be firing at. Loading is already largely automated on most modern submarines, some even have unmanned torpedo rooms.More torpedo tubes allows for more targets to be engaged at the same time via wire-guidance, adds additional redundancy and opens the possibility of a salvo launch for either AShMs or if your really need to saturate an area with torpeos quickly (large supply fleet, responding fire without a good target aquisition etc).The hydrodynamic and maintenance costs pale to the advantage of having multiple tubes, though above 4 or 5 you start getting diminishing returns.>>54685488>Make yourself a target broOnly thing Aus would gain from having nukes would be a defence moneypit and an extra share of the chinese 1st strikes in any exchange. Why risk it when you can just live under the US nuclear umbrella as a conventional power?When it comes to Aukus I can guarantee the Aus govt will flipflop again and cut the deal when it becomes obvious they won't get anything for 30 years outside of outdated LA training SSNs (neither BAE or Electric Boat can afford capacity, they can barely manage to keep up their own fleets ffs), most likely will keep kicking the ball down the road until the Collins start actively sinking in port. Should have gone Japanese when they had the chance, Australian Soryus would have been amazing in the South China Sea for countering Chinese SSKs and surface assets.
>>54681717>best submarines in the worldType IX submarines?
>>54671586Anglo American subs are built to sink China's fleet.Frances subs are built to harass GermanyWhich does Australia need to defend itself more?
>>54673764wawa = oxygen + 2 hybrogens
>>54673820More subs need to have shark mouth paintjobs
>>54686682You will scare the shit out of some atlantian.
>>54682621>2. They didn't exist.The new nuclear sub class Australia orders also does not exist, so both of your points are not really valid.
>>54687437The non-nuclear French sub was simply a bad idea, continuing that program would be sunk costs fallacy. But since those submarines don't even exist yet anyway, there's not much "sunk costs" in the first place. The french are whining about the loss of a sale of something they haven't even started building yet.Secondly, given their new decision to purchase nuclear submarines, America is the obvious choice because America (and the UK) has better nuclear submarine technology than France.
>>54682093I like this design a lot, very modern concept that takes advantage of modern motor design to minimize the normal crowded "above-board" that most vessels have by convention, without being a true submarine, reducing cost and mission scope, the canoe-like shape probably also makes it very effective at cutting water and fairly tip-proofI could see these operated with torpedoes by midling navies for cheap interdiction, kind of like a modern Type U-31
>>54687700You think latin america could produce decent engineers without all the crime and shit?
>>54687700I think such countries would probably be better served by very fast torpedo boats, not semi-submerged. The semi-submerged boats would get picked up on radar anyway, and wouldn't be able to close the gap as fast.
>>54671586>"Australia has 'virtually no chance' of getting the U.S. submarines it has been dreaming of"hahahhahahahahahahahaha
>>54687751It's hard to say. Chile is probably the most likely candidate but without any military pressures they mostly take advantage of their economy to buy foreign, not build domestic, which is really a sign of good decision-makingThey did manage to design a modern icebreaker, which isn't easy, and probably the most technical accomplishment, but honestly a lot of Narco subs are more impressive (especially the 2010 Kevlar sub)Guns, one of the easiest areas for domestic industry to become competitive, only has SG540 derivatives. They're relatively well made, but not particularly impressive. I do like how the FD200 looks, though. Very "what if you made a M1 and a SG540 fuck" look to it.
for me its the humble K XVI
>>54688221Historically, Argentina and Brazil have developed their own defense industries. Argentina became third world so they don't make much these days but Brazil still makes some decent military tech.If Chile, Argentina, and Brazil collaborated like the euros do to design something I bet they would end up with something decent.Mexico and Colombia should do the same. Those two also make some military hardware but not on the same quality and scale as the south americans.Brazil made pic related, one of the best tank designs from the 80s, so I bet they would be able to make a good sub too.
>>54687607>But since those submarines don't even exist yet anyway, there's not much "sunk costs" in the first place. But you didn't mention costs until now:>>54682621>The french were trying to sell them a submarine they didn't actually have designed yet, and it was getting stalled for years.And that's the same situation as Australia gets now into. In the foreseeable future there is no nuclear submarine Australia could get. They want the newest and best sub, of course, and this means Australia wouldn't accept the Los Angeles subs even if the US would offer them for sale. What they won't do. So I ask myself what's the advantage of avoided sunk costs when you have no submarine at all.>The french are whining about the loss of a sale of something they haven't even started building yet.The French had several preparation costs by first plannings and hiring engineers and stuff. And it wasn't just regarding the submarines, but also the preparation for the insisted submarine shipyard facility which -just for example- implied an expensive German-made precision turning lathe or rolling mill or something, the largest on the Australian continent at present. And do not forget the profit the French shipyard would have gained by fulfilling the contract. But in my opinion the main problem is not the switching to another submarine class but how the Australians cancelled the contract with France and lied to Macron just a few days before they published their new plans. That's profoundly unbusinesslike regardless of which nations were involved and of which business you are in. And I suppose this behavior will damage Australia's reputation at the arms industry for a long time. And this behaviour is the reason why I think Australia deserves all the problems with the upcoming or not upcoming nuclear sub class which will take decades (in the meaning of: d e c a d e s) until the Aussie Navy will get the first replacement for the Collins class boat.
>>54688911You're making this more complicated than it needs to be:Australia incorrectly thought a non-nuclear submarine was a good idea. Before the French had started building it, Australia came to their senses and decided to buy a nuclear submarine instead.In doing so, did they screw France? No, not really. Because France didn't start building those submarines yet, so they have no reason to whine about it.Having correctly decided they actually need a nuclear submarine, Australia chose America and the UK as partners.In doing so, did they screw France? No. America and the UK are better partners for a nuclear submarine.
>>54688977>You're making this more complicated than it needs to beContrariwise I notice your oversimplifying attempt. When someone changes his mind, it's okay to cancel contracts. As I mentioned above, Australia screwed France indeed by trying to refusing costs the French had with the preparatory work. But you're right, contracts have no meaning. It's all about the state-of-the-art technology. There does no world exist outside of the submarine tube. Oh look, a cute nuclear reactor!That's an autistic view. Albeit comfortable simplistic.
>>54689135>France indeed by trying to refusing costs the French had with the preparatory work.The majority of that "costs" was France investing in infrastructure they still possess.
>>54687607>America (and the UK) has better nuclear submarine technology than France.Who in the world knows that? They're top secret designs and I doubt any serious data exist about them.
>>54689273USA numba one.America has the most experience building them, and the technology exchanges between America and the UK suggest that the UK has some good shit too.
>>54689298>America has the most experience building themand operating them, which feeds back into knowing how to build them well.
>>54689298>the most experience building themdamn we should all buy chinese firearms then
>>54689354If China were our ally AND chinese firearms had a reputation for reliability (as American nuclear submarines do), then this would be a valid suggestion.
>>54687367Good. They too need to know it's America's ocean and they're just living there.
>>54682135I don't know much about how weight should be distributed in a submarine or ship, but wouldn't having all that weight (3000kg cargo + fuel) all at the bow cause issues?
>>54682135imagine you have to sail this shitbox throught the whole atlantik
>>54688798I avoided Brazil because it still has a huge cartel problem, even if it has improved in the past decade. Latin America already produces decent engineers, but would it do produce better ones in a clean and stable state? It's not clear, because the cleaner states seem to produce less military hardware, instead simply purchasing it. I think that makes sense, because there's less military pressure to fight cartels, a more competent government. Without these problems there's less need to justify nationalistic fervor ("made in Chile" vs "made in Brazil"?), but it's not necessarily what you would expect at first.
>>54689354see >>54689333 the chinese dont have a lot of experience actually using their guns
>>54689526They thing about latin america is that they lack the actual threat from powerful foreign countries. They signed the rio pact (nato but between latam and the U. S. A.). There is also the monroe doctrine, wich is not official but very real.The only countries they would worry about are other latam countries like memezuela, Cuba or Nicaragua.Cartels are an internal threat, and they do have a lot of money and power but you don't need cutting edge subs, tanks fighter jets etc to destroy them. You invest in COIN shit like yhe super tucano instead of the f 35, for example.
>>54669630It's unironically one of the maddest concepts you can come out with. Also, I dunno about modern wars, but being in a sub in ww2 was probably the most suicidal thing to do, ever.
>>54689616>the chinese dont have a lot of experience actually using their gunsA thousand years sounds like a solid experience to me.
>>54689735A thousand years of fireworks
>>54689735name one person you know who is a thousand years old first, and then explain how the modern northern PLA peasant army has anything to do with the regimented, mostly-nobility Qing military
>>54689157No, the order was not just building subs in existing French shipyards but supporting Australia to establish their own submarine shipyard facilities. 5 whole years passed from the execution of the contract until that miserable withdrawal. France ordered already different stuff like the German machine and besides other stuff hired engineers. And on top of that the costs included a profit that Australia accepted. Finally Australia accepted the French receivables, therefore they knew they fucked up the pullout.
>>54689427I suppose the fuel is replaced by ballast water.
>>54689985>westJapan was more agressive than the west on China
>>54690824Well what can I say, the Japanese have not always been right but they've always been quite based regardless.
hue can into ssn
>>54682112ALTA SU BARCO!!!
>>54678646Here's how Iraq could have defeated Jewmerikkka.
>>54691310If we're lucky we'll end up with one of those that's it. The pandemic has fucked our economy in the ass, inflation is about to go through the roof and the Dollar is worth a fortune, the Euro even more so, which makes it even more expensive to import the French components for our nuclear powered submarine.
>>54673842Google Azorian Blue Hades. The submarine's captain decided they were gonna violate the Benthic Treaty big time so the Deep Ones destroyed the submarine.
>>54687983One advantage it would have over torpedo boats is that its less vulnerable against aircraft. But I guess if any south American nation were to fight against a country with a competent airforce... It probably would make any difference...
>>54691310Is that a brazilian design?
>one man in a hand powered barrel against the most powerful navy in the world
>>54694753Here's another view I'm assuming
>>54671586since 1918 we have to resort to land cruisers
>>54674994ww2 design btw
>>54691310>that imageThe fuck is this?The sail is too big relative to the hull.The bow dome looks too small, like baby's penis.Why does the CIC look like an open studio apartment?The whole third platform is made for dwarfs.What is reserve buoyancy? Who needs an adequate forward ballast tank?The engine room screams, "We hired the Russian native 'Agricultural advisors' away from the Columbian 'coffee growers'."
>>54696385for real? It looks very modern.
>>54689584This is what happens when you give the British public a vote.
we have the most advanced subs (and i guess the best anti-sub tech), but is it actually possible to contain chinese subs to the 1st island chain that military nerds always talk about? do any of these enemy subs escape detection, or are all of their locations known to the navy?even though i know very little about submarine warfare, it seems highly unlikely that the us could keep track of, or contain the chinese and russians at the same time, even with the help of the british.
>>54696979A lot of modern looking cold war stuff was designed during ww2. It was a time when most of the worlds economy was being spent on war so it's no surprise
>>54673902And sub-launched cruise missiles. Slide is outdated though with the introduction of the very lightweight torpedo. That's still classified enough that we don't know what the magazine increase will be, but probably 2-3 VLWT for every 1 MK48 swapped out. The ADCAP is a thick bitch. >>54685482>would you rather be able to put 6 fish in the water in a matter of seconds or in a bit less than 10 minutes?The use of multiple tubes also substantially increases the total number of weapons carried, and means you can almost always have a ready round for a snap-shot to break wire guidance or just hit a target of opportunity if you need it. The autoloader as you visualize it basically already exists, it's not all chains and trolleyways and block and tackle gear like ww2 or something. >>54687751They produce great engineers. They just all leave and move to Miami as soon as they can.>>54694753Paid for with the equivalent of two spearmint esco bars today. War. War never changes
>>54682704Why is the Jimmy Carter longer than the other sea wolf class subs?
>>54685488AUS doesn't have nukes? fr fr no cap blowing my mind rn
>>54692500Kino, thanks anon
>>54680259>>54680499God I hate these stupid fucking pieces of shit, fuck all of our politicians for wasting billions of dollars on these stupid fucking paperweights, we should've gone with the nuclear program that had been proposed instead.That said, I did have the chance to get a guided tour of HMCS Corner Brook about 12 years ago when it wasn't totally fucked, which was super neat. It's kind of shocking just how cramped they are inside. I can't imagine volunteering to serve on one of our boats.
>>54700890It's a pretty open secret that it had modifications to make it more usable for SEAL insertion. Not sure what mods specifically beside the SDV drydock. Maybe more berthing is why it's longer
>>54700890The answer is secret gov stuff.The answer is always secret gov stuff.
>>54688911the lnp is basically a jobs program for private school types who didn't cut it in their nepotism jobs so yeah 'unbusinesslike' behaviour was unfortunately par for the course at the time :/
>>54675280Its a very tedious process, it involves the FTs doing fuck all, the TMs losing everything required to do the weapons movement, and the STs providing all the man and brain power.
>>54692523what's this from?
>>54673797Looks like the front might fall off
>>54682105>>54682127>>54682135Who is building these things?
>>54675098Warum, old chap?
>>54704977Could you tell us sub-ignoramii what those abbreviations mean?
>tfw no pockmark sub gf
> laughs in WW2 desperation
>>54705629They are rates in the US navy. FT = Fire Control Technician, TM = Torpedoman, ST(S) = Sonar Technician Submarines. If you ever make the mistake of enlisting (or god forbid commissioning) into the sub service be a STS or as close to sonar as possible, its the best rate/ place on the boat.FTs are generally lazy and entitled, they are almost as bad as the Radiomen (used to be RM/ETR now they are ITS). TMs are just plain retarded though, and they smell bad. Sonar, as I said, has the best job on the boat. In my opinion if you are going to be on a sub, being an ST is the only reason why you should. Even if you get roped into doing the bulk of the FTs job and have to babysit the TMs for weapons handling evolutions.I'll answer any other questions you have, within reason.
>>54673833wtf is up with that prow?
>>54682105Sorry, some mad bastard crossed the Atlantic in a LPV? That must have been a hell of a journey in one of those.
>>54705796>manned torpedo>named 'nigger' after the last name of its inventorlmao
>>54672174Fuck off leftypol
>>54696972I don't have much of a reason to protect Brazilian submarine building (or France's since this sub is almost entirely based on french ToT, but this post is so stupid I can't hold back. >The sail is too big relative to the hull.Sails can come in all kinds of sizes and depending on the overall design, various solution can be best. The GUPPY submarines had very high sails, as did the early Soviet ballistic missile subs because they preferred to enlargen the sail instead of the entire submarine hull. Plus, the sail needs to have a certain minimum size to accomodate all the sensors.>The bow dome looks too small, like baby's penis.The size of a sonar doesn't have to correspond to its effectiveness. Plus it'll likely also have side array sonars.>Why does the CIC look like an open studio apartment?Because it's an early visual representation that might not even be official?>The whole third platform is made for dwarfs.Mainly just due to perspective, but it doesn't even look like like humans are supposed to regularly go there. It's just for torpedoes and machinery etc.>What is reserve buoyancy? Who needs an adequate forward ballast tank?Why use mathematical calculations if you can simply make poor judgements by eyesight?Not like I would normally trust a South American country with building a decent modern sub but they get all their technology and knowledge from France who seem to have produced a decent SSN with the recent Suffren-Class, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
>>54706727That hydrocephalus bow was advantageous for surfaced high speed the sub was made for
>>54669630>really like the concept of subs>terrified of being below the water line in open waterI am perpetually conflicted.
>>54705002BBC doc called The Silent War.
>>54706447>I'll answer any other questions you have, within reason.how familiar are you with modern SSKs? which ones are top tier? which navies are good at employing them?
>>54669861Last post I made a few days ago before I was double banned :)Pics from USA Cavalla
>>54713463I've only tracked them (can't say which ones or where), and have never been on one. So I can't really answer how different they are from SSNs. If I get lucky I can get into the PEP and hopefully get on one with the Japs or the Aussies.As for the top tier ones? German 214s are very capable and I hear they are great to be on. Same with the Collins class. Best navies at employing them? That's a tough question to answer, and my gut tells me the Australians but I couldn't really give you a definitive answer on this
>>54714618Feel oblige to post this
>>54714675If you're ever in the Houston-Galveston area, I highly suggest seeing the USS Texas and USS Cavalla. There's a no-name destroyer also on display next to the Cavalla, but, per my previous statement, I forget its name.
>>54714736Send them eels
>>54681812this one is good
>>54714871Some petty officer bunks?
Just looking at a target
>>54714590cheers, also how's the food on your boats? what do the cooks do to make it interesting towards the end of a patrol?
>>54671586Austria is a landlocked country.
>>54715211Its hit or miss it depends on how much the cooks care on that particular day. The food overall isn't bad, but I've had some pretty bad experiences. The cooks I have had are a fan of slightly thawed chicken, mushy yet crunchy rice, and saltchops. Normally the bread is on point though, not going to lie. At the end of a mission set they'll (try to) spice it up if they can afford to, but in my experience we start rationing pretty early in underway. US fast attacks generally don't know how long we'll be out for so the food rationing can be pretty bad, on one of my underways by the end of the mission we we eating a scoop of rice or bread and peanut butter for every meal. SSBN guys normally eat better than us, but they aren't real submariners
Old Australian Oberon class
>>54715704Canadian Oberon. We had half as many as a Australia but still managed to beach a few.
>>54715317>by the end of the mission we we eating a scoop of rice or bread and peanut butter for every mealholy shit, didn't realize it was like that. MREs seem decadent by comparison
>>54673761>>54673878What were they thinking? This is Battleship aircraft carrier tier.
>>54696979The Nazis unironically created the modern world, either directly or indirectly.
>>54669630Thoughts on that smarter every day guys series on a nuclear sub?
>>54715984it's probably pretty good but I can't bring my self to watch his cringe inducing bubbly positive attitude content
>>54716004Fair enough. He gives out too much good information that I can tolerate it>Shows off that glass teardrop that can withstand small calibers of bullets
>>54716591It found land
>>54715780Ngl MREs are great. But the food can be pretty good if there is an inspection or someone important on board. When Naval Reactors came down to my 1st boat our cooks just crushed the fuck out of every meal. And Thanksgivings are decent for the most part, we set up a game of madden and watch AI thanksgiving football games during the meal hour (which is pretty pathetic now that I type it out). There was a point in time the positives outweighed the negatives and I thought I was going to do at least 20 in the community. But the food is definitely a big let down for the service overall. Still beats being in some shithole foxhole though, so perspective is everything.
>>54698061That kind of information is far too classified for you or I to ever know about.
>>54706447>other questionsSo do you regret enlisting into sub service in retrospect? I'm actually considering to enlist myself (although in a country that only has a few SSKs, very good SSKs tho). Also how rigid are hierarchies there? Do you have any kind of chance of getting promoted as a sonarman or are you destined to be bound to your position with no further perspective?
I really want to tour Redoutable one day.
>>54706447>I'll answer any other questions you have, within reason.All I know about submarines are from the Tom Clancy novels, so I guess my questions are1. Is Red October really as popular among submariners as I heard? 2. How accurate is the depiction of 1980's submarine warfare to what happens today? I assume all the sonar, electronics, fire control stuff has been completely overhauled and computerised.